|
Currently Ostheer Panther veterancy is as follows:
Vet1: Unlocks the 'Blitzkrieg' ability
Vet2: +10% armour +20% health, +40% weapon rotation speed
Vet3: -30% reload, +20% rotation speed, +10% ac/de-celeration
How about the following changes?
Vet0: Upgrade Panther main gun damage to 200 (from 160)
Vet2: Replace health/armour bonus with -30% reload bonus
Vet3: Replace reload bonus with gun damage increase from 200 to 240
Regarding the Vet1 ability, either:
- Make Blitzkrieg less of a no-brainer. E.g., using Blitzkrieg, the tank suffers from a debuff in max-speed and rotation-rate (say 20%), and acceleration (say 50%) for 10 seconds
- or, design a different ability. E.g., for 30 seconds, any tank hit by the Panther will remain visible even in the fog of war for 8 seconds (i.e., like the British Hammer ability, but without the bugs that make it practically useless).
The whole idea behind this is making the Panther into more of a glass cannon that can really bite. This is, while, at the same time removing the no-brainer part of the Blitzkrieg* ability which rewards bad plays too much.
The initial damage increase will have an impact mostly:
- vs advanced mediums (Comet, etc)
- veterancy gain for the Panther
- repair times for the opposition
On the other hand, the Vet3 bonus will have a profound effect on the Panther as it will effectively reduce the amount of successful shots needed to kill any target by at least 1.
*The Blitzkrieg nerf assumes UKF and OKW abilities will follow suit with a similar nerf.
|
Stupid question , is Partisan AT, Boys AT Tommy and British sniper, PTRS form Guard infantry and Conscripts not receive -60% Xp penelity too ? they are also have handheld AT Too .
No, it's just Bazooka/Schreck/PIAT.
Although it did occur to me to give a penalty to PTRS as well:
- Given the low burst of AT rifles, 60% would be too much.
- I didn't want to give huge penalties to units that double-wield AT weaponry (otherwise, RIP Panzergrenadiers)
- At the same time, I didn't want units that equip a single AT weapon to be good anti-everything (single-zook Riflemen, Sturmpioneers)
- Due to how the stuff behind the scenes work, giving a penalty to PTRS rifles that is different from the other AT weapons would be either (i) too much effort (ii) inconsistent (e.g., what happens if you have 1 PTRS and 1 Bazooka vs 2 Bazookas or vs 2 PTRS?)
- For the AT-bearing units, if a fix is required, this can be implemented by changing veterancy requirements for the affected units (e.g., Guards).
- In any case, the PTRS really doesn't deal that much damage to help cheat veterancy.
|
Needs some work and I believe it should very much be a meatshield tank. I'll plug my suggestions here:
-Veterancy 2 Horizontal Traverse Speed removed. Replaced by an aura that boosts nearby infantry, increasing accuracy by 10% while reducing received accuracy and cooldowns by 10%. 25 meter radius.
-Veterancy 3 Reload modifier removed.
-Veterancy 3 Speed and rotation modifier from 1.2 to 1.15.
-Veterancy 3 allows the KV-1 to repair 1.25 health every second when out of combat and increase the tank's health by 160.
-Health from 800 to 960
-Vet 1 to "Defense Mode" from "Capture Point". Defense mode halts all movement of the tank in exchange for 0.8 recieved damage and lowers reload speed by 0.85.
Now you have a very tanky vehicle. It doesn't kill much at all, but it's a very annoying meatshield to deal with. The aura might be too much, but it could be a timed ability. I don't think it would need limits as you would feed TDs XP, though Mother Russia could use some looking at. It's like Valiant Assault, but way better since you get an armour bonus.
Veterancy requirements might also need to be increased with these changes.
I don't like the idea of presenting utility in the form of passive always-on auras. If KV-1 had the ability to throw smoke around to cover an advance, that would be enough to convince me to build one.
Otherwise, the idea for the aura could work, but only if it isn't folded into a passive, always-on aura.
Auras, in general, can have unintended consequences. Especially if you combine these with new penals and the "For Mother Russia" buff that comes with the same commander.
Otherwise, the rest of the buffs seem to signal to me, that KV-1 is meant to be a tank that is extremely fussy to take down; which isn't a bad thing, in general.
|
|
I just pushed a tiny update to the mod.
1. Handheld AT weapons (e.g., PIATs/Zook/Schreck), now give squads that carry them a -60% penalty to received experience.
The penalty remains -60% regardless of what type of AT weapon is carried, and regardless of how many weapons are carried.
The rationale behind this is that many players have been stocking their squads with a single zook/etc in order to powerlevel that squad, without hurting AI too much.
2. All TDs (not just JP4) now have vehicle prioritisation permanently on. The affected TDs also receive a hold-fire ability.
- Due to the other changes in the mod, this won't affect coaxial MGs/MG upgrades etc
3. Changed Anvil Advanced Warning so that it now only affects territories by players that upgraded Anvil (previously, it used to affect all allies).
- In the Live version, this ability does absolutely nothing. It's bugged.
- In the QoL mod, the ability used to give sight over all friendly sector points
- With the new change, the ability will only give sight (to all allies), on only those territory points controlled by the player
This is so as to bring the passive ability in-line with OKW Overwatch.
|
"Axis strong late game"
What a myth. Maybe a few years ago but not today.
I would love to see how Allies would deal with having the same reinforcement costs as ostheer. 30mp for grens and 42 for pgrens is absurd.
Eh
PGrens reinforcement cost has been 34MP for a year now.
(Stormtroopers are 33MP-a-head)
|
|
Unless you are at the very bottom of the ladder (in which case, you need to L2P), matchmaking will, eventually make it so that you are matched against opponents you have chance of beating (even if it means dropping to rank 600-ish so that you are matched against rank 1k+ opponents).
Personally, I really love playing OST post patch for the sole purpose that I love playing aggressive factions. Especially in teamgames.
The USF mortar has forever altered the dynamics of the early game, making it mandatory to go for a mad dash to grab it/neutralise it, which gets adrenaline pumping. This is, while also doing something to neutralise the light-tank advantage of USF/Soviets.
Thus, the innate disadvantage of OST vs USF, and the requirement to bully UKF in the early game, make for a very fun experience.
As Panzergrenadiers tend to remark in-game: relax; take a shit; whatever.
Also, Stug spam never gets old.
|
|
Another idea would be to leave the relative balance of vanilla-weapons and slot-items as it is (i.e., they cost a bit to upgrade, but it really increases a squad's passive DPS).
I am of the opinion that, it would be nice to keep double-equiping in the game, if there's a smart way to balance it. Currently, slot items confer no downsides (apart from paying for them, and risking dropping them; RNG). Imo, slot items should confer a passive, always-on disadvantage to the squad.
This will make using slot weapons more of a careful choice, than a no-brainer advantage you should use when you can afford it.
1. Take abilities away, when slot items are used
For instance, slot items should also take something away. E.g.;
- A rifleman squad with no slot weapons has access to the entire range of abilities it currently does
- A rifleman squad with 1 weapon loses access to AT nades
- A rifleman squad with double upgrades loses access to all abilities
2. Give more choice. However, with great power come great responsibilities
Another example, I am actually going to trial in my mod and see how it works like, is Sturmpioneers. (Assuming that we make all minesweepers occupy 1 slot), I would allow Sturmpioneers to pick any 2 upgrades they seem fit:
- If they only go for the minesweepers, they will act as they currently are
- If you go for minesweeper & another item, you lose access to the following:
-- Minesweeper holster
-- Stun nade
-- Minesweeper repair speed upgrade
3. Reduce received experience for handheld AT squads
In addition, I am thinking that handheld AT slot items should reduce experience gain for squads that carry them. For instance:
- Each Panzerschreck reduces received experience by 50%*
- Each Bazooka/PIAT reduces received experience by 30% (so that two of them reduce received experience by 50%
- BARs/LMGs/etc could also reduce received experience by some amount.
* The percentages are arbitrary. However, two zooks should have the same drawback as a panzerschreck, since each operates at half the efficiency of a schreck. IMO, 50% might not be drastic enough, and we should go for something more aggressive. However, 50% is a good start.
|
Steel pact from Coh1 was my favourite map. Short enough, wider, it was funny to play on it.
I think that Steel Pact could work, if it's ported to CoH2, as long as the pathways become a bit wider. The reason is that in CoH2 we have the Walking Stuka barrage pattern, which requires the defender to sidestep to dodge it. If the Pathways remain as narrow as they are in the CoH1 version, we are going to get the "Trois Points" effect.
The reasons that CoH1 seem to be so barren of cover (especially yellow cover) are:
- CoH1 didn't have vaulting (thus, fences had to be use sparingly)
- CoH1 stealth units didn't require cover to function
|
hey,
just noticed all the work made by Mr Smith and the others to fix bugs.
awesome work !
i'm going to make some ai battles to give u feedback on this mod.
i guess we should all spam @Kyle_RE with a link to this mod. He is lazy enough to just make a copy pasta of it but whatever...
so after 3 ai 4 vs 4 expert mod, i noticed some huge freezes and sluttering, which never happened before.
That is an excellent idea to benchmark the requirements of this mod. Many of the changes in this mod required me to tweak some conditional actions (some of which are checked as often as 100 milliseconds), while others required me to include repeated actions.
1. Is there any chance you can describe what units the AI built, or, even, uploading a replay to this site, so that I can inspect it?
2. Could you repeat the same test by having 4 Soviets vs 4 Soviets battling it out? There's only a handful of things I changed in that faction, and I want to try to see which changes are the heaviest.
|
As a rule of thumb, if the map in question existed in the map-pool of CoH1 (e.g., Montargis, Red Balls, Hill 331), just veto it. This is because these maps:
- Lack cover (which is needed for snipers, mgs, etc)
- Have a completely different resource allocation system
- Most of them are too crowded, even by 3v3 standards
- Were never designed with Forward-Retreat-Points or JT/Elefant in mind
Let those ghosts hang back in the closet. If you want to play these maps, just fire up CoH1 and experience them the way they were meant to be.
Good maps are:
- Wide enough to allow for flanks (and prevent MG lockdown)
- Short enough to make FRP rince-repeat cheese less powerful
- Allow the players to utilise almost the entire available territory (e.g,. Lienne forest is notorious for the often-neglected forest region)
- Have reasonably-well contestible resource points (Steppes - good. Lorch - baaaad)
- Don't have all resources clumped up together (Montargis, wtf?)
- Don't have mud everywhere, just for the express purpose of advertising the mud mechanic
e.g., Hill 400 would have been a perfect map, if not for the inclusion of the maphack watchtowers (and the prominence of mortar pits/Walking stuka)
Bad 4v4 maps include:
Lorch assault
Montargis region
General mud
Hill 331
Vielsalm
Those are the worst imo
Yeppers.
At first I read "best", my head tilted, and then I read your message properly.
|
0
Romeo
Mr Smith
Luciano
Mr Smith
Relic Entertainment
